User talk:Beezo7474

Hello, Beezo7474. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You need to disclose your employment/relationship to Traffic City LLC and/or Josh Monkarsh on your user page
Hello Beezo7474. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Beezo7474. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback Ian.thomson. You are mistaken in that I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits.
 * Did you know that becoming an administrator on Wikipedia requires a certain set of skills that largely prevent one from qualifying for the Special Olympics?
 * You're obviously either Josh Monkarsh or someone who works for him. If you're going to lie about it, I'm going to have to block you for editing in bad-faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that you are a sockpuppet of . I had left that account softblocked so that you could register with the intention of acknowledging and learning about our policies and guidelines.
 * You were welcome to provide policy-based reasons for why the article should not be deleted, and cite reliable sources to support its inclusion. It was made clear that all you needed to do was take into account what other people were saying and disclose your rather obvious ties.
 * Instead, you decided lie about what other people were saying, while making the frankly racist implication that "cha-cha" has some special meaning to all Latinx peoples. For the sake of anyone working for Josh Monkarsh, I would hope that you are not him or one of his employees but are instead a troll imitating him.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)